Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 4496892" data-attributes="member: 2209">Forked from: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?postid=4496126" target="_blank"> 4e Has Less Raw Content: Fact! </a>I've read a number of comments lately similar to this one praising the 4e DMG.I've seen a number slagging the 3e DMGs in comparison as well.I was given the 4e DMG as a birthday present from my brother who thought I might like a glimpse into 4e and that it might have some applicable advice for the 3e games I run. I'm currently reading it straight through cover to cover. I DM 3.5 and own a 3.0 DMG but have not read through it cover to cover. I use it constantly as a reference book for PC starting wealth, NPC loot, xp, traps, disease, and (by far the most common reference) the magic items. These reference issues are why it is a core book I use. The 4e DMG is the only 4e book I own but I'm interested in the new system (just not enough to buy the new system myself at the current price point). I'm currently in the middle of the artifacts and looking forward to the DM toolbox section which is next for the monster and NPC creation rules.I've been DMing since the early 80s. I started with the old red book basic set (not the later red box set) and that is where I learned to DM. I read that book fully. Later I got the follow up blue expert set and the three core books for AD&D 1e. I read the whole DMG (though not cover to cover straight) and it changed how I DMd. I DMd for years in 1e and was happy with how I was doing so.When 2e rolled around I got the PH but kept using my 1e DMG and monster books. I borrowed a copy of the 2e DMG and copied the new demihuman limit charts and the new xp section. The magic items from 1e and basic were compatible so I was fine using my existing books until the end of 2e when I got the CD with all the core and complete books on it (and that was more for the completes and having electronic references to core stuff rather than wanting to read any new core DMG stuff).With 3e I used the 3.0 DMG as a reference for the new mechanics (xp, wealth charts, magic items) but did not worry about world building advice and most everything else. I use the srd all the time for the mechanics in there and switched to 3.5 that way.I got the 3e Ravenloft DMG but returned it fairly quickly as it was mostly DMing advice I did not feel I wanted.I've gone back and fourth on whether I like the 4e DMG.I like most of the art and the large easy to read print.The 4e DMG focuses a lot on providing DM advice. It has a few chapters on the mechanics of games dealing with skill challenges and random task DCs(immediately erratad for target numbers) xp, traps, poisons, artefacts, and monster/NPC creation. The majority is on advice however.There seems a concerted effort to have individual topics covered in a two page dungeon delve style spread which is convenient for isolated reading but sometimes constrains what is actually put in there. Often I felt it was simply telling people to do things instead of explaining how to do them. "Make the campaign story engaging for your players" type of summary advice instead of providing suggestions on how to do so. More aspirational in places than instructional.Other times it has what I consider great gaming insights and game design advances. I love the concept of monster roles and the encounter templates for providing mixed monster role encounters to create different combat dynamics.I'm really looking forward to reading in depth the monster/NPC creation and quick adjustment rules, they look like a huge DM prep improvement in game mechanics.For all the open math aspect of 4e and particularly monster design I was surprised not to see formulae or guidelines for poison or trap or disease design, just samples to use or to model new ones from. I was also surprised in their first sample skill challenge to see the intimidate = failure adjudication which was not provided for in the skill challenge rules.Some parts like the monster role concept have crystalized some ways of thinking about the game for me as a DM. Others were just eh for me. So there are parts I like and don't like in the 4e DMG.So what are your experiences with and views of DMGs, 4e and past editions?</blockquote>

Verification